ardizing the term "program" so that a single source can be produced with welldefined programs, lucid and complete program descriptions, and thorough crossindexing. Producing an adequate catalog does not require the establishment of a whole new bureaucracy or the hiring of a large staff. Producing an adequate catalog does require, however, the passage of legislation to mandate the contents and direction of the catolog. Legislation is needed, too, so that the producers of the catalog will have a legislative sanction for their efforts and can thus more easily gather the information from the myriad of federal agencies and departments involved in assistance programs. WHAT CATALOG LEGISLATION SHOULD CONTAIN Before considering any specific aspects of the report from the Bureau of the Budget, I would like to take a positive step and address more specifically what this proposed legislation should accomplish. A single catalog, suitably indexed, should disclose to the potential applicant all sources of aid appropriate to his needs; should give him sufficient information (including current eligibility and funding status) to make a preliminary selection of the most appropriate program or programs; and should give him the best contacts for further inquiry. Furthermore, to help Congress, the catalog should list all programs, including those not funded at present, and should be cross-indexed by statute, as well as by function. I am pleased that the Bureau of the Budget, along with a number of other agencies, has recommended enactment of S. 60. As you know, the Bureau did condition its approval on the adoption of a number of changes in the proposed language of the bill. I shall not go into detail on each of these proposed changes unless this committee so desires, but I would like to comment on some of the Bureau's recommendations. I have no objection to a number of their revisions, some of which improve the existing language. I have also incorporated BOB's suggestion of limiting the catalog to those programs where the potential recipient must initiate action. The changes that I believe are acceptable have been written into the revised draft of the bill attached to this testimony and shall be included with the approval of the Chairman as part of the record, as exhibit 5. On the other hand, there are a number of changes with which I do not agree. 1. Program definition The Bureau would substantially revise the program definition. Part of the revision is satisfactory. I do not, however, agree that foreign programs for which Americans are eligible should be excluded. If this were the policy, programs such as the various Fulbright scholarships and other fellowships for training abroad, assistance for American business abroad, and some of the counterpart fund utilization by Americans abroad under P.L. 480 would be excluded. Foreign programs that do not apply to U.S. citizens or institutions should be excluded and the revised draft has incorporated such language. 2. Updating Legislation should set minimum standards for updating. The Program Information Act now calls for monthly supplements; the Bureau of the Budget objects on grounds the task is too burdensome. Current information is essential if the catalog is to be relied upon. Otherwise, applicants—whether a governmental unit or an individual-waste both time and funds. The importance of keeping the information current is reflected in the following statements received in answer to a questionnaire I sent to 10,000 city, state, and local officials, as well as to schools, civic associations, and private consultants. From a public high school system in California: A government-wide catalog might be printed in a looseleaf notebook and revised whenever changes occurred in the various categories of program information. Up-to-date information regarding funding is the most difficult information to get as well as changes in program direction, etc. From a planner in Colorado: The current catalogs are not kept up-to-date and it is difficult to keep up with administrative memoranda that are issued. A centralized updating system is sorely needed. From a county planning agency in Nevada : The catalog should be looseleaf and revised whenever information, criteria, program, etc., have been changed in a manner which affects the applications. This would allow a precise and correct application to be made without resubmissions and amendments. While the Bureau has objected to our monthly updating, it has now revised its own circular A-89 to require quarterly updating. I therefore propose that S. 60 be modified to provide for "no less than quarterly" updating. With experience it may be possible for the government, like major commercial catalogs, to keep the catalog even more current. For that reason, as indicated, I have inserted the words "no less than." 3. Financial Information The Bureau has objected to the inclusion of certain financial information on the grounds that it is too burdensome to supply. I cannot stress too much the importance of information such as the range of assistance, the average grant, and, to the extent possible, funds available. The importance of financial information is demonstrated by the following statements: From a state welfare agency in the Middle West: Existing catalogs are generally just not specific enough to be useful. They get out-of-date very quickly and one never knows if funds are vailable. From a county planning agency in Georgia : There is an urgent need for accurate detailed funding information for all federal programs; each time a program is discussed, funding availability should be given first. We waste thousands of dollars tracking down programs which are widely advertized but where little or no source of money exists. From a college in Alaska: We need to have the specifics of how to file, who to send to, what they really are looking for in their programs, and what monies are really going to be available. Many proposals are an exercise in futility. To meet the objection that it may not always be possible to include such information, I propose that the language be modified to make the requirement permissive. I would, therefore, substitute the following language for Section 6(3): —(3) provide financial information. This information may include obligations incurred for past years and in the present year, the range of financial assistance and average assistance given, where appropriate, and other pertinent financial information designed to indicate the size of the program and any funding remaining available. The importance of legislation to mandate the inclusion of financial information is underscored by a $30,900 study by the Midwest Research Institute which stated that this type of information is among the most needed, but often the most difficult to obtain. Charles L. Schultze, the former Director of the Bureau of the Budget, testified before this committee on November 21, 1966, and stated that State and local governments "need fiscal information-how much money is available under both formula and direct project grants, and for what periods." 4. Related programs The Bureau would also delete the requirement to name related programs on the grounds that the index can fulfill this need. While theoretically this is true, I have found that one of the most serious defects in the present federal system is the lack of information about related programs. I believe it to be vitally important to establish what programs are interrelated and for this information to be easily accessible to the average user of the catalog as part of the program descriptions. 5. Publication of the Catalog The present bill proposes that the Bureau of the Budget assume the function of producing the catalog. The Bureau, however, recommends that the President be given the authority to determine what agency should have this responsibility. I believe this recommendation is desirable as I believe the publication of the catalog should ultimately be assigned to a future information center. I do not think, however, the catalog should be published indefinitely by an agency, such as the Office of Economic Opportunity, with a vested interest in certain federal assistance programs. CONCLUSION For the reasons described, I urge the enactment of S. 60. I believe this measure will be a most helpful step toward improving communications with our constituents, as well as being a prerequisite to bringing order out of the present maze of programs. I believe Congress should require by legislation the disclosure of meaningful program information to the public. I do not doubt that the present draft can be improved upon-to me, the form of the legislation is less important than the substance. The important thing is that we have a breakdown of all programs in one readily available report. I also believe the Program Information Act will be a necessary step toward the consolidation envisioned under the Grant Consolidation Act. With the approval of the Chairman, I am including as part of the Record (as exhibit 6) my comments made on behalf of that legislation before the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the House Committee on Government Operations. Thank you very much. Exhibit 2 (Endorsements) NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE 60TH ANNUAL MEETING CINCINNATI, OHIO JULY 21-24, 1968 XV-IMPROVED MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Whereas according to a recent report by certain Members of Congress, there are more than 1,270 federal programs offering assistance to local and state governmental units; and Whereas these programs are operated by various agencies of the federal government, and in many instances have become competitive and overlapping; and Whereas the overall effect of the number, complexity and duplication is to create a situation of difficulty and confusion; and Whereas this difficulty and confusion could be alleviated by the annual publication of a complete compendium of federal assistance programs and by the establishment of a commission for the improvement of government management and organization insofar as they affect state and local governmental units: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the National Governor's Conference go on record as supporting (1) the annual publication by the federal government of a complete compendium of all operating programs offering assistance to state and local governmental units; and (2) the creation of a commission on the national level for the improvement of government management and organization insofar as they affect state and local governmental units, such as the commission envisioned by H.R. 18113. NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS, MIAMI BEACH, FLA., AUGUST 23, 1968 IMPROVED MANAGEMENT AND REPORTING OF FEDERAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS Whereas there are more than 1,270 federal programs offering assistance to local and state governmental units; and Whereas these programs are operated by various agencies of the federal government and in many instances have become competitive and overlapping; and Whereas the overall effect of the number, complexity and duplication is to create a situation of difficulty and confusion; and Whereas this difficulty and confusion could be alleviated by the annual revision, publication and distribution to legislative leadership, state agencies and planning bodies of a complete compendium of federal assistance programs and by the establishment of a commission for the improvement of government management and organization insofar as they affect state and local governmental units; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the National Legislative Conference, meeting in Miami Beach, August 23, 1968, go on record as supporting the publication by the Federal government of a comprehensive catalog containing complete, up-to-date information, issued frequently on all operating Federal assistance programs as proposed in H.R. 17915, and the creation on the national level of a commission for the improvement of Federal government management and organization and its interrelationship with other levels of government, such as the commission envisioned in H.R. 18574. AMENDMENTS AND REVISIONS TO AMERICAN COUNTY PLATFORM, AS PROPOSED BY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES RESOLUTION COMMITTEE, JULY 31, 1968 Resolution of NACO board of directors. Be it resolved that the 33rd Annual Conference of the National Association of Counties go on record as supporting the publication by the Federal government of a comprehensive catalogue containing complete, up-to-date information, updated frequently on all operating |
